Forgot your password?
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
  • default color
  • green color
  • red color


Jul 13th
Home Columns JGL Eye Fil-Am Priest Joins Move to Repeal the "Fraudulent" 14th U.S. Amendment
Fil-Am Priest Joins Move to Repeal the "Fraudulent" 14th U.S. Amendment PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 2
Columns - JGL Eye
Thursday, 15 July 2010 06:25




(Journal Group Link International)


Filipino-American Priest Joins Move to Repeal the "Fraudulent" 14th U.S. Amendment


C HICAGO (JGLi) –  A Filipino-American priest has joined the advocacy of a Seattle, Washington-based state lawyer to erase from the books the 14th Amendment of the American Constitution that was fraudulently passed by the U.S. Congress and the White House more than 140 years ago.


The Amendment XIV says:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This Amendment tried to mass-convert into “citizens of the United States” all blacks whose slavery was one of the causes that sparked the Civil War. But it was not properly and lawfully ratified – by three-fourths of the several States that existed in 1868 – thereby making it  unconstitutional as “no courts are bound to enforce it,” according to 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd, Section 25.


Los Angeles, California-based Rev. Prisco Entines, digressing from his “full-time advocacy” for full benefits and for conferring “instant U.S. citizenship” to “conscripted Filipino soldiers during World War,” wrote President Barack Obama, suggesting for the holding of a convention that would re-write the discredited “14th Amendment” and settle the nagging controversies, including gripes of “birthers,” who question Mr. Obama’s qualification as a “natural-born U.S. citizen.”




Q uoting the opinion in Dyett v. Turner (1968), Attorney Paul Andrew Mitchell said the Utah Supreme Court recited “irrefutable historical details, proving that the so-called 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified.” Senators and representatives from 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the ten southern states – Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi, Florida and Texas. This deprived the 14th Amendment to be ratified by a three-fourth’s vote required to amend the Constitution.


The flawed 14th Amendment, however, was obscured by the passage two years earlier of the Civil Rights Act in 1866 that according to Mitchell “is now identified as the source of extensive duplicity that was introduced into numerous subsequent Federal laws, specifically by creating a second, inferior class of ‘federal citizens,’ but using language deliberately calculated to confuse that second class with the primary class of State Citizens.”


In its ruling on the “Eisner v. Macomber (1920),” the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the U.S. “Congress cannot by legislation alter the Constitution.” Between 1788 and 1866, the U.S. Constitution had recognized only one class of State Citizens.  This is the class of Citizens who are eligible to serve in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, and in the White House.  This requirement is found in the Qualifications Clauses for those offices, respectively.


There are two other places in the Constitution where State Citizens are also mentioned, namely, in the Diversity Clause, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clauses.  State Citizens were the only class of Citizens recognized by Law during that long period of time.  And, none of these Clauses has ever been amended.




T he devious lawyers who devised a second class of federal citizens did so by using a slightly different phrase – “citizen of the United States” (lower-case “c”) – to identify and create a second means of classifying blacks who were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.  Short of a proper Constitutional Amendment, Congress had to do something like that, because the Dred Scott decision had already barred Congress from ever enacting any statute which tried to confer State Citizenship upon freed blacks, Mitchell argues.


The second class of “federal citizens” are those in the District of Columbia, where Congress is in effect the “State government” for all intents and purposes. It does not need to seek approval of 50 State Legislatures in passing the legislation called “municipal law” and “private international law.”


The historical consequences of confusing these two separate classes of people have grown into a particularly twisted situation at present:  those who are qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House are not eligible to vote or serve on any juries.  And, those who can vote and serve on juries are not eligible to serve in the House, Senate or White House. This twisted situation is the necessary result of changing the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen” to the lower-case “c” in “citizen”.  And, there is no statute of limitations for fraud of this kind.




M itchell’s Supreme Law Firm has now submitted its petition to the U.S Senators and Representatives in its Washington state. Mitchell said citizens in California and Kansas have now joined him. The following corrected Constitutional Amendment that he proposed is as follows:


“Section 1.  The status of Citizen of one of the United States of America shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State of the Union on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is hereby repealed with prejudice.


Section 3.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”


In the case of Father Entines, he wants to amend one of the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of the President in Art. II, Section 1, Clause of the Constitution: “A President must either be a “natural born citizen” or “naturalized citizen” of the United States.”


At present, only a “natural-born citizen of the United States” can run for U.S. President.


Here's hoping these amendments will see the light of day. # # #


Editor’s Note: To contact the author, please e-mail him at:  (



Last Updated on Thursday, 15 July 2010 07:11

Add your comment

Your name:
Your email:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):

Who's Online

We have 33 guests online


Please consider supporting the "ReVOTElution of Hope" for Sorsogon as the Pilot Province. Please see "ReVOTElution" Banner on this page for details.


Quote of the Day

Divine souls suffer violent opposition from mediocre minds.~Albert Einstein